EXISTING PROCESSES AS A BARRIER TO EFFECTIVE RPL IMPLEMENTATION

On the other hand, the majority of the respondents pointed out some of the strengths that the current assessment tools have. The assessment tools allow for the translation of informal learning into formal learning that might lead to the acquisition of certificates. P7 explained that “It is

inclusive in the sense that it accommodates different levels of knowledge and experience and does not exclude content. It also allows effectiveness of assessment and moderation”.

However, this perspective was contradicted since most external moderation reports (outcomes of the evaluators‟ site visits) indicated that the assessment tools failed the validity, authenticity, currency and sufficiency principles. There is thus a need for SAQA and/or the SETA to come up with standards that are applicable to all RPL centres as it is with the training provision. Much details and guidance are given to the designers of the curriculum and learning materials. This should be applicable to the designers of RPL assessment tools as well. Also the tools should allow the four sets, as determined by Anderson and Harris (2006): challenge processes; nationally standardized examinations; portfolio development and practices which draw on other approaches such as interviews.

The providers seem to be imposing the assessment approach/method to be used. A better strategy would have been to allow the assessor and the candidate to negotiate the best method/s to be used for the RPL assessment in each specific instance.

Last but not least, the majority of the respondents insisted that the English language is a barrier in implementing RPL in the real estate industry as the majority of real estate agents that do not hold a recognised certificate are not speakers of English as their mother tongue. RPL assessment tools are designed in English and do not cater for other South African official languages; i.e. Zulu, Xhosa, iTshivenda, Sepedi, etc. English, therefore, has been regarded as the exclusive language of learning to the exclusion of other languages. “This needs to be addressed in future

as there are so many PDP that have knowledge, experience and skills in the industry but cannot express themselves properly in English”, said P11. P3 said if ever he was given a chance to

compile his PoE in his mother tongue (isiZulu) – he should have excelled. “I knew all the

answers in Zulu but translating them in English took me time and I didn’t have the best luck to translate them perfectly”.

4.4.2 Existing processes as a barrier to effective RPL implementation  

33

The RPL process is attached as Appendix D. The RPL process from inception till the closing phase includes the distribution of the empty PoE to candidates; the submission of PoEs by candidates; the collection of PoEs by the RPL Centre‟s representatives; and the distribution of the assessment feedback in the format of reports that include assessors and moderators‟ signatures to the candidates. The responses of the participants in extenso were: P6: “returning

the PoEs and giving assessment outcomes to candidates just take the providers forever because of many hands on, accountability and responsibility. The processes are too cumbersome because of segregation of stages”. P1 said: “The training providers or private Further Education and Training Colleges should not have been experiencing delays in terms of giving assessment feedback to candidates as this diminishes their momentum. They should have been expediting the process to allow those candidates who have to collect more evidence or do reassessment to prepare themselves accordingly”.

Another problem identified is that constituent assessors have got less knowledge on the RPL process and tend to do things similarly to the training process; and also those called “RPL advisor or Evidence Collection Facilitator” have poor knowledge in terms of the nature of RPL and or its processes.

From the perspective of the RPL candidates, it was felt the RPL process and requirements result in them taking too long to submit their PoEs. This was contrary to their expectations. Candidates, before enrolling in the RPL, were told that RPL is the simplest route to obtain a certificate. However, once they enrolled as RPL candidates the language changes and they experienced the process as confusing and demanding.

Most candidates complain that they have little time to compile their PoE. Providers should keep in mind that these candidates are workers and „breadwinners‟ in their respective families. Therefore they need sufficient time to put together the requested evidence.

4.4.3 Assessment and moderation policies and procedures as a barrier to effective RPL implementation

P8 strongly believed that “the assessment policies and procedures are still relevant, the

processes are clear and the quality management systems are good; however the efficiency of the process is poor in terms of time, the excessive number of stages and repetitive evidence that are

34

required from the candidate”. He further indicated that “there are no standards that are followed by providers in terms of outputs as compared to the training intervention where the standards are clear, i.e. NQF qualification on SAQA website where standards are clearly outlined”.

The external moderation that needs to take place in order to quality assure the assessment outcomes take long to happen as the Education and Training Quality Assurer (ETQA) has to set up a date in most cases two to three months from the time a confirmation email is sent to the providers. This is one of the major complaints providers have as candidates will keep on calling to find out when they will get their assessment outcomes. P1 indicated that after completing her PoE she had to wait for four years to get a certification of competence and in the mean time she lost many employment opportunities as employers needed someone with an accredited certificate. She said: “I completely lost faith in RPL as I could see opportunities leaving me

because of the certificate that was taking forever. I hated at that time RPL and wished I went through the normal training. I was completely lost and disappointed.” The ETQAs should be

making sure that they cut down on the time between the submission of the candidates‟ achievements and the external moderation site visit as this has negative implications for candidates. P4 echoed the previous informant: “I thought the RPL process, in terms of

assessment and moderation processes, were shorter as the training sessions were totally excluded. But it is just the opposite. It seems like the certificates of candidates that go through the training process are printed and processed urgently. It is completely unacceptable as the assessment and moderation policies are not talking to the reality”. The ETQA should also

ensure that Quality Management Systems are working accordingly in the RPL Centres. The QMS indicate easy flows of implementation but the reality is something else. This shows that the problem is with people who are implementing the systems and not necessarily the systems themselves.